·1· · · · · ·UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`· · · · · · ·BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`·2· · · · · · ·_____________________________________
`
`Page 1
`
`·3· · · · · · · · ·BAKER HUGHES INCORPORATED and
`· · · · · · · BAKER HUGHES OILFIELD OPERATIONS, INC.
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · Petitioners
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · v.
`·5· · · · · · · PACKERS PLUS ENERGY SERVICES INC.,
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Patent Owner
`·6
`· · · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00596 - Patent 7,134,505
`·7· · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00597 - Patent 7,543,634
`· · · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00598 - Patent 7,861,774
`·8· · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00650 - Patent 6,907,936
`· · · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00656 - Patent 8,657,009
`·9· · · · · · ·Case IPR2016-00657 - Patent 9,074,451
`
`10
`
`11· · · · · · · · · ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION
`
`12· · · · · · · · · · · · · ALI DANESHY
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · March 29, 2017
`
`14
`
`15· · · · ORAL VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ALI DANESHY, produced
`
`16· ·as a witness at the instance of the Respondent and duly
`
`17· ·sworn, was taken in the above-styled and numbered cause
`
`18· ·on the 29th day of March, 2017, from 9:58 a.m. to
`
`19· ·3:49 p.m., before Terrilyn Paul Crowley, Certified
`
`20· ·Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of Texas,
`
`21· ·reported by computerized machine shorthand at the
`
`22· ·offices of Norton Rose Fulbright, 1301 McKinney Street,
`
`23· ·Suite 5100, Houston, Texas, pursuant to the Federal
`
`24· ·Rules of Civil Procedure and the provisions stated on
`
`25· ·the record or attached hereto.
`
`1 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · APPEARANCES
`·2
`·3· ·FOR THE PETITIONERS:
`·4
`·5· · · · Mr. Mark T. Garrett
`· · · · · NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
`·6· · · · 98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`· · · · · Austin, Texas· 78701-4255
`·7· · · · Telephone: 512.474.5201
`· · · · · E-mail: mark.garrett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`·8
`·9
`10· ·FOR THE RESPONDENT:
`11
`12· · · · Mr. Justin Nemunaitis
`· · · · · Mr. Bradley W. Caldwell
`13· · · · CALDWELL CASSADY CURRY
`· · · · · 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000
`14· · · · Dallas, Texas· 75201
`· · · · · Telephone: 214.888.4853
`15· · · · E-mail: jnemunaitis@caldwellcc.com
`· · · · · E-mail: bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com
`16
`17· ·ALSO PRESENT:
`18· · · · Mr. Anthony Matheny
`19· · · · Mr. Brandon Rojas, Videographer
`20· · · · Judge Daniels and Judge Capp (via telephone conference)
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Page 4
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going on record
`·2· ·9:58 a.m., Wednesday, March 29th, 2017.· Beginning the
`·3· ·deposition of Dr. Ali Daneshy.
`·4· · · · · · · · · Counsel, please state their appearance
`·5· ·for the record.
`·6· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· Justin Nemunaitis for
`·7· ·Rapid Completions, and with me is Brad Caldwell, also
`·8· ·for Rapid Completions.
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· This is Mark Garrett for
`10· ·Petitioners, and with me is Anthony Matheny, in-house
`11· ·counsel for Petitioners.
`12· · · · · · · · · THE REPORTER:· Can you please raise your
`13· ·right hand?
`14· · · · · · · · · THE WITNESS:· Before -- I need to let
`15· ·you-all know something.· I just recently had shoulder
`16· ·surgery.· Okay?· So my right hand is pretty much out of
`17· ·commission.· So if during the day I frown or I, you
`18· ·know, look something, unhappy or something, it's nothing
`19· ·to do with what's going on here.· This is -- you told me
`20· ·to raise my right hand, and I suddenly realized there's
`21· ·a little bit of pain in here.· But go ahead, please.
`22· · · · · · · · · · · · ·ALI DANESHY,
`23· ·having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
`24· · · · · · · · · · · · · EXAMINATION
`25· · · ·Q.· · (By Mr. Nemunaitis) Can you please state your
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·INDEX
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·ALI DANESHY
`
`Page 3
`
`·4· ·Examination by Mr. Nemunaitis .....................4
`
`· · ·Examination by Mr. Garrett ......................115
`
`·5· ·Further Examination by Mr. Nemunaitis ...........123
`
`·6· ·Telephone Conference .............................38
`
`·7· ·Signature Page ..................................128
`
`·8
`
`·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · (None offered)
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Page 5
`
`·1· ·name?
`·2· · · ·A.· · Ali Daneshy.
`·3· · · ·Q.· · You're an expert hired by Baker Hughes in this
`·4· ·matter?
`·5· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`·6· · · ·Q.· · I understand you just injured your shoulder
`·7· ·recently, you were telling us?
`·8· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`·9· · · ·Q.· · I'm sorry to hear that.· Sounds like a bummer.
`10· ·Let me just ask:· Are you on any kind of pain medication
`11· ·or anything that would prevent you from giving --
`12· · · ·A.· · No.
`13· · · ·Q.· · -- honest testimony today?
`14· · · ·A.· · No.
`15· · · ·Q.· · This is your second deposition in these
`16· ·proceedings, right?
`17· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`18· · · ·Q.· · Since the last time we spoke, have you spoken
`19· ·to anyone about these IPR proceedings or these patents,
`20· ·besides Baker Hughes' attorneys?
`21· · · ·A.· · No.
`22· · · ·Q.· · Now, you submitted a new report in these
`23· ·proceedings -- or a new declaration, right?
`24· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`25· · · ·Q.· · In it you say that you reviewed Rapid
`
`2 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 6
`
`·1· ·Completions' redacted response and Mr. McGowen's
`·2· ·redacted declaration.· Do you remember that?
`·3· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`·4· · · ·Q.· · Did you ever review their -- the unredacted
`·5· ·response or the unredacted McGowen declaration?
`·6· · · ·A.· · No.
`·7· · · ·Q.· · Did you ever ask to see those?
`·8· · · ·A.· · No.
`·9· · · ·Q.· · Do you think any of the information in there
`10· ·could have been important to your opinions in these
`11· ·matters?
`12· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form.
`13· · · ·A.· · Since I don't know what is in it, I don't know
`14· ·whether it would or would not be.· My opinions are
`15· ·generally technical.
`16· · · ·Q.· · Do you know if there's any technical
`17· ·information that was redacted from those --
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`19· · · ·Q.· · -- documents?
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Foundation.
`21· · · ·A.· · No.
`22· · · ·Q.· · Did you ever ask about that?
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`24· · · ·A.· · No.
`25· · · ·Q.· · You didn't think that would be important?
`
`Page 8
`
`·1· ·foundation.
`·2· · · ·A.· · I don't think so.
`·3· · · ·Q.· · Why is that?
`·4· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`·5· · · ·A.· · I don't know what's the other part of it, but
`·6· ·the part that I saw that I have given opinions on, those
`·7· ·were quite clear.
`·8· · · ·Q.· · What about your ultimate conclusion of
`·9· ·obviousness?· If you had been presented with all the
`10· ·evidence in this case, including the stuff that was
`11· ·redacted, do you think there's any way you would have
`12· ·changed your opinion on whether or not these patents
`13· ·were obvious?
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection, foundation,
`15· ·relevance.
`16· · · ·A.· · I cannot give an opinion about something I
`17· ·don't know about.
`18· · · ·Q.· · So you don't -- you don't think your ultimate
`19· ·conclusion of obviousness would change regardless of
`20· ·whether or not you saw that material?
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.· Beyond
`22· ·the scope, which is 611(b).· For the record, it's
`23· ·Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b), and I'll shorten that
`24· ·to just 611(b).
`25· · · ·A.· · I didn't think -- I don't think my opinion
`
`Page 7
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`·2· · · ·A.· · I basically tried to respond to points that
`·3· ·the attorneys had asked me to review and give opinions
`·4· ·on.· And those were from Mr. McGowen's testimony.
`·5· ·That's what I did.
`·6· · · ·Q.· · So Baker Hughes didn't ask you to respond to
`·7· ·any of the portions of Mr. McGowen's testimony that
`·8· ·were -- that contained the redacted material?
`·9· · · ·A.· · No, they did not.
`10· · · ·Q.· · Your new report says that you were asked by
`11· ·Baker Hughes to rebut certain arguments from the McGowen
`12· ·declaration.· Is that right?
`13· · · ·A.· · They asked my opinion about certain aspects of
`14· ·his declaration.
`15· · · ·Q.· · Did they ask you about all the opinions in his
`16· ·declaration or just some?
`17· · · ·A.· · Just some.· I think.· Because I don't know
`18· ·all -- you're telling me that there were parts of the
`19· ·testimony which were redacted and so on.· I don't know
`20· ·what was in there, so I cannot tell you that I gave
`21· ·opinion about all of it.
`22· · · ·Q.· · Do you think, if you had seen the redacted
`23· ·material from the McGowen declaration, it could have
`24· ·caused you to change some of your opinions?
`25· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form,
`
`Page 9
`
`·1· ·would have changed relative to the obviousness.
`·2· · · ·Q.· · In your opinion, the person of ordinary skill
`·3· ·in the art of these patents would have had about three
`·4· ·years of experience.· Is that right?
`·5· · · ·A.· · Would have had at least three years of
`·6· ·experience.
`·7· · · ·Q.· · Now, you're more than just a person of
`·8· ·ordinary skill in the art, right?· You've got 50-plus
`·9· ·years experience in the field?
`10· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`11· ·scope.
`12· · · ·A.· · I'm an expert on hydraulic fracturing.
`13· · · ·Q.· · The point I'm trying to clarify is:· You're
`14· ·envisioning that the person that's skilled in the art of
`15· ·these patents doesn't necessarily need to have the same
`16· ·level of experience as you.· Is that fair?
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`18· ·scope.
`19· · · ·A.· · I don't think he needs to have as much skill
`20· ·as I do.
`21· · · ·Q.· · Now, one of the opinions in your new
`22· ·declaration is that the person of ordinary skill in the
`23· ·art of these patents would not have had ultimate
`24· ·responsibility over a completion project.· Is that
`25· ·right?
`
`3 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 10
`
`·1· · · ·A.· · That's correct.
`·2· · · ·Q.· · You said at the -- your opinion is that the
`·3· ·person with ultimate responsibility would be someone who
`·4· ·had more experience, someone like yourself, right?
`·5· · · ·A.· · No.· The person with ultimate responsibility
`·6· ·would have a higher level of authority than a POSITA.
`·7· · · ·Q.· · In forming your opinions, are you assuming
`·8· ·that the person of skill in the art can consult with
`·9· ·more experienced engineers, people like yourself, on how
`10· ·to design a frac system?
`11· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`12· ·scope.
`13· · · ·A.· · Yeah, he has that ability to do that.
`14· · · ·Q.· · So if the person of ordinary skill in the art
`15· ·in your analysis thinks that there's some problems or
`16· ·concerns, they can talk to a more experienced engineer
`17· ·who can explain that there's ways to solve those
`18· ·problems?
`19· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`20· ·scope.
`21· · · ·Q.· · Fair?
`22· · · ·A.· · Generally, these kinds of decisions are made
`23· ·by a group of people, and they have access to each
`24· ·other's collective knowledge.· And they, of course, can
`25· ·always also access what's in the literature and talk to
`
`Page 12
`·1· · · ·Q.· · In your analysis are you assuming that the
`·2· ·person of ordinary skill in the art is the one that has
`·3· ·to come up with a system that meets all the limitations
`·4· ·of the claims at issue?
`·5· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`·6· ·scope, relevance, foundation.
`·7· · · ·A.· · I'm not quite clear what your question is.
`·8· ·Can you repeat that?· Maybe so that I follow you,
`·9· ·please.
`10· · · ·Q.· · In your analysis are you trying to determine
`11· ·whether a person of skill in the art would come up with
`12· ·a system that meets all the limitations of the claims at
`13· ·issue?
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Hold on just a minute.
`15· ·That's not limited to what's in his second declaration.
`16· ·So if you're trying to go back and ask questions about
`17· ·the opinions in his first declaration and not those in
`18· ·his second declaration which concern the rebuttal of
`19· ·certain points that Mr. McGowen made, certain arguments
`20· ·that Rapid Completions made, then we need to talk to the
`21· ·Board about going down that path.
`22· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· On this question?
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Yes, on that question.
`24· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· Let's talk to the Board
`25· ·on this question and get it out of the way because the
`
`Page 11
`
`·1· ·others.
`·2· · · ·Q.· · A person of skill in the art might be
`·3· ·concerned about using Thomson in the open-hole for the
`·4· ·first time, but your opinion is that that person could
`·5· ·talk to a more experienced engineer and they could get
`·6· ·rid of those concerns by giving them the benefit of
`·7· ·their experience.· Is that your opinion?
`·8· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form.
`·9· · · ·A.· · No, that's not what I'm saying.· A person of
`10· ·ordinary skill would consider the possibility of using
`11· ·Thomson's system in an open-hole.· And then as he moved
`12· ·forward, if there are issues that come up, they will see
`13· ·if they can be resolved.· And if they can resolve them,
`14· ·then they continue with the process.
`15· · · ·Q.· · Why does it matter to your opinions that a
`16· ·person of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`17· ·ultimate authority over a frac job?
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`19· ·scope.
`20· · · ·A.· · The ultimate responsibility generally, first
`21· ·of all, does not reside with a single person.· That's
`22· ·not the common practice in the oil and gas industry.
`23· ·And it will reside at a higher level in the organization
`24· ·after they have reviewed not only technical but also
`25· ·some other data also.
`
`Page 13
`·1· ·opinion in his rebuttal declaration was the person of
`·2· ·skill in the art could consult with engineers and they
`·3· ·would not have ultimate responsibility for the job.· My
`·4· ·question is:· When you're doing your analysis, given
`·5· ·that you've disclosed this new opinion, what are you
`·6· ·doing?· What is your opinion based on?· How does this
`·7· ·new statement in your rebuttal declaration affect your
`·8· ·conclusion of obviousness?
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· He's rebutting a point that
`10· ·Mr. McGowen made that underlies Mr. McGowen's opinions.
`11· ·So if you want to ask him why did you make the point
`12· ·that you did in rebuttal to what Mr. McGowen said and
`13· ·reference his declaration, then we can do that.
`14· · · · · · · · · But you asked him a question about
`15· ·something basically in his original declaration.· That
`16· ·was your question.· It wasn't what's in your second
`17· ·declaration.
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· It's obviously what's
`19· ·based on his -- I mean, if you want to call the Board,
`20· ·let's get out the number and do it.· This seems --
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Let go back and look at the
`22· ·question.· "In your analysis are you trying to determine
`23· ·whether a person of skill in the art would come up with
`24· ·a system that meets all the limitations of the claims at
`25· ·issue?"· Where is that opinion in his second
`
`4 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 14
`
`·1· ·declaration?
`·2· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· The opinion is that the
`·3· ·person of skill in the art would not have ultimate
`·4· ·responsibility for the job he's designing.
`·5· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· How is that tied to all the
`·6· ·limitations of the claims at issue?· That's not an
`·7· ·opinion he rendered in the second declaration.· He's
`·8· ·talking about the ultimate responsibility for a project,
`·9· ·project management, that kind of stuff.· You're now
`10· ·trying to loop back in and get at questions that maybe
`11· ·you should have asked in his first deposition.
`12· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· If he expresses an
`13· ·opinion in his reply declaration that conflicts with or
`14· ·seems to conflict with, as far as I can tell, opinions
`15· ·in his original declaration, then I've got to find
`16· ·out -- understand what the conflict is, whether or not
`17· ·there's a conflict and understand what's going on there.
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Yeah, but that's not what
`19· ·you're doing.· You're asking questions about what the
`20· ·opinions that he rendered -- actually, he didn't render
`21· ·opinions about the ultimate conclusion of obviousness in
`22· ·most of the opinions that he rendered if you read his
`23· ·declaration carefully.
`24· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· Baker Hughes is not
`25· ·supporting these petitions with any expert declarations
`
`Page 16
`
`·1· ·10:14 a.m.
`·2· · · · · · · · · (Recess taken)
`·3· · · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going on record
`·4· ·10:17 a.m.
`·5· · · ·Q.· · (By Mr. Nemunaitis) Would a person of skill in
`·6· ·the art try to design a successful fracturing system?
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`·8· ·scope.
`·9· · · ·A.· · A fracking system generally is not designed by
`10· ·one person.
`11· · · ·Q.· · So your answer is no?
`12· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`13· ·scope.
`14· · · ·A.· · One person --
`15· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Hang on just a minute.
`16· ·This is the same issue.· I mean, these are discrete.· He
`17· ·talked about Thomson and Brown.· He talked about
`18· ·McGowen's position with respect to the operational
`19· ·issues in Thomson.· He talked about the conventional
`20· ·wisdom, and he talked about Figure 6.· Those are very
`21· ·discrete topics that are in his second dec.· These broad
`22· ·questions are not related to those.
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· We can try and take that
`24· ·one up when they call as well.
`25· · · ·Q.· · Would a person of skill in the art be
`
`Page 15
`
`·1· ·stating that the claims are obvious, that's your
`·2· ·explanation?
`·3· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· They say obviousness -- he
`·4· ·says obviousness with respect to two things.· You don't
`·5· ·know what those are because you haven't read it
`·6· ·carefully, I take it.· But if you look at his first
`·7· ·declaration and you look at the Thomson and Ellsworth
`·8· ·combination, I think you'll find that he does not say
`·9· ·"I'm reaching the legal conclusion that the claims are
`10· ·obvious."
`11· · · · · · · · · MR. CALDWELL:· You weren't really saying
`12· ·that Justin hasn't read it carefully, were you?
`13· · · · · · · · · MR. MATHENY:· That's what I heard.
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· He wouldn't ask the
`15· ·questions he's asking if he did.
`16· · · · · · · · · MR. CALDWELL:· If that's the way you like
`17· ·your lawyers to behave, then -- let's just call the
`18· ·Panel because I think if it's going to be at that level
`19· ·of professionalism, let's just call the Panel.· Do you
`20· ·guys have a number for it?
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· I've got a number we can
`22· ·try, yeah.
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. CALDWELL:· Are you ready to do that?
`24· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Yeah, let's do it.
`25· · · · · · · · · THE VIDEOGRAPHER:· Going off record
`
`Page 17
`·1· ·concerned about the risk of using Thomson's system in an
`·2· ·open-hole?
`·3· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· It's the same issue.
`·4· · · · · · · · · Don't answer that.· No, that's fine, you
`·5· ·can answer that.· Beyond the scope, but you can answer.
`·6· · · ·A.· · Yeah, he would -- he would consider all
`·7· ·possible risks.· The open-hole is not -- does not really
`·8· ·pose any particular risk as such.· It just imposes
`·9· ·conditions that need to be satisfied, and once those are
`10· ·satisfied, the risk is the same as anything else.
`11· · · ·Q.· · Would a person of skill in the art be
`12· ·interested in maximizing profitability in designing a
`13· ·completion for a well?
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`15· ·scope.
`16· · · ·A.· · Increasing profitability is always a desirable
`17· ·outcome of any project.
`18· · · ·Q.· · Is that a yes or a no?
`19· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`20· ·scope.
`21· · · ·A.· · His main objective is not maximizing
`22· ·profitability.· His main objective is successful
`23· ·implementation of the frac job.· And, of course,
`24· ·hopefully, the profitability also be maximized.
`25· · · · · · · · · The tricky part here is maximizing
`
`5 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 18
`·1· ·profitability.· The term "maximizing profitability" is
`·2· ·very vague, just exactly what does that mean.
`·3· · · ·Q.· · What does it mean for the implementation of a
`·4· ·frac job to be successful?
`·5· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`·6· ·scope.
`·7· · · ·A.· · Success in a frac job is measured in multiple
`·8· ·forms.· First is successful implementation of the frac
`·9· ·job, execution of the job successfully.· That's the
`10· ·first part of it, and that's the part that the person of
`11· ·ordinary skill would have certain influence on.
`12· · · · · · · · · The second part of it, which is financial
`13· ·profitability, depends on matters which are basically
`14· ·what Mother Nature has given and go beyond what a person
`15· ·can do.· And those are related to the characteristics of
`16· ·the reservoir and so on.
`17· · · ·Q.· · So a person of skill in the art does not
`18· ·measure success of a frac job by considering whether or
`19· ·not the job was financially profitable?
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`21· ·scope.
`22· · · ·A.· · You do not -- the person of ordinary skill
`23· ·would not consider doing a frac job if he did not expect
`24· ·that treatment to be financially profitable.· You do not
`25· ·fracture a well for the sake of fracturing.· You
`
`Page 20
`
`·1· · · ·Q.· · Sure.
`·2· · · ·A.· · Please.· Which paragraph, please?
`·3· · · ·Q.· · There's the section on conventional wisdom.
`·4· ·Do you remember that?
`·5· · · ·A.· · Correct, yes.
`·6· · · ·Q.· · When you wrote that part of your report
`·7· ·discussing conventional wisdom, were you focused on how
`·8· ·a person of ordinary skill in the art thinks about
`·9· ·fracturing today?
`10· · · ·A.· · No, that is as of 2001.
`11· · · ·Q.· · Do you think a person of skill in the art
`12· ·thinks about fracturing differently today from the way
`13· ·it was done in 2001 before the invention date of the
`14· ·patents at issue?
`15· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`16· ·scope.· That can be taken up with the Board.
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. CALDWELL:· Is that an instruction not
`18· ·to answer?
`19· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Yeah.
`20· · · ·Q.· · Just to be clear, are you going to follow your
`21· ·attorney's instruction and not answer that question?
`22· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`23· · · ·Q.· · Do you know how an analysis of conventional
`24· ·wisdom is relevant to the legal test for deciding
`25· ·whether a patent is obvious?
`
`Page 19
`·1· ·fracture it in order to hopefully produce oil and gas
`·2· ·and make money.
`·3· · · ·Q.· · Is the intent of fracturing to reach deeper
`·4· ·into the reservoir?
`·5· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`·6· ·scope, relevance.
`·7· · · ·A.· · The answer strictly to your question, no.
`·8· · · ·Q.· · Why do you say that?
`·9· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`10· · · ·A.· · The objective of fracturing is to increase the
`11· ·productivity of the well.
`12· · · ·Q.· · Regardless of whether a person of skill in the
`13· ·art has ultimate responsibility for a job, would you
`14· ·agree that they're not going to recommend a system if
`15· ·they think some alternative can better increase the
`16· ·productivity of the well?
`17· · · ·A.· · Yes, they would -- no, they would -- they
`18· ·would try to give the best alternative.
`19· · · ·Q.· · In your new report, you talk about -- I'm
`20· ·sorry, strike that.
`21· · · · · · · · · In your new report, you discuss
`22· ·Mr. McGowen's opinions regarding conventional wisdom.
`23· ·Do you remember that?
`24· · · ·A.· · If you have my testimony, could we go over it
`25· ·and see specifically which part?
`
`Page 21
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form.
`·2· · · ·A.· · I don't really understand the question.
`·3· · · ·Q.· · So you're not familiar with sort of the legal
`·4· ·background into how conventional wisdom affects the
`·5· ·obviousness analysis as a legal matter?
`·6· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`·7· · · ·A.· · Why don't you ask specific questions so I can
`·8· ·answer it because -- I mean, this vague thing where --
`·9· ·somewhere between the technical and legal things, and,
`10· ·as you know, I'm not a lawyer.
`11· · · ·Q.· · You understand that there's a legal test for
`12· ·determining whether or not a patent claim is obvious,
`13· ·right?
`14· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`15· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`16· ·scope.· Hang on.· Objection, beyond the scope.
`17· · · ·Q.· · Do you understand how conventional wisdom in
`18· ·the art can impact that legal test for determining
`19· ·obviousness?
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, form, beyond the
`21· ·scope.
`22· · · ·Q.· · I'm just asking about your personal knowledge.
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.· And
`24· ·relevance and foundation.
`25· · · ·Q.· · You can answer.
`
`6 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 22
`
`·1· · · ·A.· · Ask the question again, please.
`·2· · · ·Q.· · Why don't we read it back?
`·3· · · ·A.· · Just read it back, please.
`·4· · · · · · · · · (The record was read as requested)
`·5· · · ·A.· · Yeah, I think so.
`·6· · · ·Q.· · What's your understanding?
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`·8· · · ·A.· · If it is something that a person of ordinary
`·9· ·skill would basically conclude knowing what he gets
`10· ·without having to resort to any external things, then
`11· ·that's obvious.· I had given opinions about obvious and
`12· ·so on in my first deposition, and I would suggest that
`13· ·we just read that.
`14· · · ·Q.· · In your declaration you talked about the
`15· ·conventional wisdom in the art and how that plays into
`16· ·the obviousness analysis?
`17· · · ·A.· · No.· We discussed -- in my first declaration I
`18· ·had discussed the question of obviousness.
`19· · · ·Q.· · But not conventional wisdom, right?
`20· · · ·A.· · No, I don't think so.
`21· · · ·Q.· · You've just been handed a copy of the Ellis
`22· ·article.· You see that?
`23· · · ·A.· · Yes, sir.
`24· · · ·Q.· · Could you turn to the Conclusion section?
`25· · · ·A.· · Okay.
`
`Page 24
`·1· · · ·Q.· · Is Ellis recommending that a person of skill
`·2· ·in the art should try to create longitudinal fractures
`·3· ·versus multiple transverse fractures?
`·4· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`·5· · · ·A.· · No.· Actually, Ellis uses both systems, both
`·6· ·types.
`·7· · · · · · · · · The point here which is critical is that
`·8· ·neither Mr. Ellis or anybody else can control the
`·9· ·fracturing in horizontal well once the well is there.
`10· ·Once you drill a horizontal well, you get whatever
`11· ·fracture is going to be there.
`12· · · ·Q.· · Well, Ellis says that the wells with
`13· ·longitudinal fractures outperformed wells with
`14· ·transverse fractures, right?
`15· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`16· · · ·A.· · The wording is critical.· Complete coverage of
`17· ·the open-hole lateral can be achieved in a single
`18· ·treatment for longitudinal fractures using this process.
`19· ·If you --
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Are you reading the
`21· ·right -- he asked you to look at No. 4.
`22· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· Could you let him --
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Sorry.
`24· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· I understand you're
`25· ·trying to help but I --
`
`Page 23
`·1· · · ·Q.· · Could you take a minute to read conclusion
`·2· ·No. 3?
`·3· · · ·A.· · Okay.
`·4· · · ·Q.· · What does it mean when Ellis says, "This
`·5· ·eliminates the need for costly multiple stage
`·6· ·completions in horizontal wells"?
`·7· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`·8· ·scope.
`·9· · · ·A.· · What he's saying is avoid the steps of setting
`10· ·up the well, fracturing it multiple times and
`11· ·stimulating in that fashion.
`12· · · ·Q.· · Ellis is saying that he developed a new system
`13· ·that just does single-stage fracturing instead of
`14· ·multi-stage fracturing.· Is that fair?
`15· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`16· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`17· · · ·Q.· · Take a look at conclusion No. 4.
`18· · · ·A.· · Okay.
`19· · · ·Q.· · What does this distinction between
`20· ·longitudinal and multiple transverse fractures mean?
`21· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`22· · · ·A.· · Longitudinal fractures is a fracture that runs
`23· ·along the length of the horizontal section, horizontal
`24· ·wellbore.· Transverse fractures are fractures that are
`25· ·perpendicular to the horizontal wellbore.
`
`Page 25
`
`·1· · · ·A.· · Okay, sorry.
`·2· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· -- I want to make sure
`·3· ·he gets his testimony out before you interrupt him.
`·4· · · ·A.· · He's right, I was reading the wrong one.
`·5· · · · · · · · · "Horizontal wells drilled to create
`·6· ·longitudinal fractures have outperformed horizontal
`·7· ·wells drilled to develop transverse fractures."· He's
`·8· ·just making an observation based on the results and the
`·9· ·data that he had created.
`10· · · ·Q.· · Is Ellis -- strike that.
`11· · · · · · · · · Is Ellis providing the conclusion that a
`12· ·well with a longitudinal fracture can outperform wells
`13· ·with multiple transverse fractures?
`14· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Beyond the scope.
`15· · · ·A.· · No, Ellis -- I read the whole paper.
`16· ·Basically what Ellis is saying is that you can do either
`17· ·one.
`18· · · ·Q.· · So when Ellis says horizontal wells drilled to
`19· ·create longitudinal fractures have outperformed
`20· ·horizontal wells drilled to develop transverse
`21· ·fractures, you don't think that would have any influence
`22· ·on a person who's trying to decide between drilling a
`23· ·well for longitudinal fractures versus transverse
`24· ·fractures?
`25· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objection.
`
`7 of 52
`
`Ex. 2085
`IPR2016-01506
`
`

`

`Page 26
`·1· · · ·A.· · When you create a longitudinal fracture in a
`·2· ·horizontal well, you have got a single fracture that
`·3· ·runs along the length of the well.· When you create
`·4· ·transverse fractures, your production depends on how
`·5· ·many of these you put along the horizontal well.· You
`·6· ·can put two of them, you can put five of them, you can
`·7· ·put a hundred of them.
`·8· · · ·Q.· · Let me try to break that down and make sure I
`·9· ·understand what you're saying.· Okay?
`10· · · ·A.· · Sure.· This is -- please note this paper was
`11· ·written in the year 2000.· Okay, go ahead.
`12· · · ·Q.· · Why is that important?
`13· · · ·A.· · That reflects the state of knowledge in the
`14· ·year 2000 and his experience at that time.
`15· · · ·Q.· · Do you think the state of knowledge is
`16· ·different today, that matters in some way?
`17· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Objection, beyond the
`18· ·scope.· You can take that up with the Board if you want
`19· ·to ask that question.
`20· · · · · · · · · MR. NEMUNAITIS:· You're instructing him
`21· ·not to answer?
`22· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Yes.
`23· · · ·Q.· · You're not going to answer that question?
`24· · · ·A.· · No, I'm not going to answer.
`25· · · ·Q.· · When a person of skill in the art designs a
`
`Page 28
`·1· · · ·Q.· · So you're saying a person of skill in the art
`·2· ·can design a single-stage job where the goal is to
`·3· ·create multiple longitudinal fractures?
`·4· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`·5· · · ·A.· · If you have got 10,000 feet of horizontal
`·6· ·section, you may not be able to create a fracture that
`·7· ·runs 5,000 feet, 10,000 feet at one time.· So you may
`·8· ·want to do that in several stages.· So you create
`·9· ·multiple longitudinal fractures that cover the length of
`10· ·the well, but it's not a single fracture.· It's multiple
`11· ·pumping times because you have to pump in quite a volume
`12· ·of fluid in order to create it.
`13· · · ·Q.· · If a person of skill in the art is just
`14· ·pumping a single-stage frac job in a horizontal well to
`15· ·create a longitudinal fracture, then you end up with one
`16· ·longitudinal fracture, right?
`17· · · ·A.· · Correct.
`18· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`19· · · ·Q.· · Now, when you design a job to create
`20· ·transverse fractures, your production depends on the
`21· ·number of transverse fractures that you put in the well,
`22· ·right?
`23· · · · · · · · · MR. GARRETT:· Same objections.
`24· · · ·A.· · Yes.
`25· · · ·Q.· · And the person skilled in the art or the
`
`Page 27
`·1· ·job to create a longitudinal fracture in a horizontal
`·2· ·well, you end up with a single fracture that runs along
`·3· ·the length of the well, right?
`